The Only Green New Deals That Have Ever Worked Were Done With Nuclear, Not Renewables

[bigsly]

In 2003 I co-founded a progressive Democratic, labor-environment push for a Green New Deal. We called ours a “new Apollo project,” after the 1969 moonshot.

But it was the same green agenda of advocating taxpayer money — we asked for $300 billion — for efficiency and renewables.

By 2007 our efforts paid off when then-candidate Barack Obama picked up our proposal and ran with it. Between 2009 and 2015, the U.S. government spent about $150 billion on our Green New Deal, nearly half of which went to renewables.

An appallingly large sum — $24 billion — was spent on biofuels, even though everyone knew that they pollute more than fossil fuels. Now we know they also destroy rainforests.

Another $15 billion went to energy efficiency, which turned out to be a massive waste of money.

Chagrined by my role, which resulted from equal parts ideology and ignorance, I spent the last decade looking around the world for alternative models.

I quickly discovered two things. First, no nation has decarbonized its electricity supply with solar and wind. Second, the only successful decarbonization efforts were achieved with nuclear.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...one-with-nuclear-not-renewables/#5996cd867f61

 

[Hal9000_]

No shit. It's not as if the energy industry will ever be on board.

It's like asking big tobacco to admit they kill people.

 

[HisArpy]

But then the NIMBY's show up...

 

[Hal9000_]

But then the NIMBY's show up...

They show up...or a power plant shows up in their back yard?

Hey...nuclear power plant...no big deal, right?

 

[von_Bismarck]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...one-with-nuclear-not-renewables/#5996cd867f61

Technology changes, eyer, and with it the economic incentives. Womp womp.

 

[HisArpy]

They show up...or a power plant shows up in their back yard?

Hey...nuclear power plant...no big deal, right?

Based on the stats, civilian use of nuclear power is safer than airplanes.

The thing about it is that there are only so many places you can put one. So far. Eventually I think that nuclear plants will be sited offshore and in a way which will make them impervious to weather related accidents/incidents.

That will take tech we don't currently have but its much more foreseeable than green new ideas about eliminating fossil fuels within 30 years while having no idea on how to do it or whether we will ever have the technology of doing it.

We will probably never eliminate fossil fuels. What we can do is reduce our reliance upon them.

 

[Hal9000_]

Based on the stats, civilian use of nuclear power is safer than airplanes.

The thing about it is that there are only so many places you can put one. So far. Eventually I think that nuclear plants will be sited offshore and in a way which will make them impervious to weather related accidents/incidents.

That will take tech we don't currently have but its much more foreseeable than green new ideas about eliminating fossil fuels within 30 years while having no idea on how to do it or whether we will ever have the technology of doing it.

We will probably never eliminate fossil fuels. What we can do is reduce our reliance upon them.

Well...we currently have a fleet of offshore and even underwater reactors.

Obviously not on an energy distribution scale...but still.

Anywho...the problem is and always has been:

Storage.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Well...we currently have a fleet of offshore and even underwater reactors.

Obviously not on an energy distribution scale...but still.

Anywho...the problem is and always has been:

Storage.

Shoot it straight into the sun. Gotta be a way get it off planet safely.

 

[HisArpy]

Well...we currently have a fleet of offshore and even underwater reactors.

Obviously not on an energy distribution scale...but still.

Anywho...the problem is and always has been:

Storage.

Shoot it straight into the sun. Gotta be a way get it off planet safely.

I actually thought about this in a non-scientific way.

Radiation is the universe. It is the total spectrum. From light to radio to hard radiation, it's all about radiation wavelengths.

Think of it as a rainbow. Our vision in a small "colorband" of the radiation spectrum. We can devise ways to see in other "colors" such as UV by using devices which can pick up radiation wavelengths in that spectrum and then project it in ours so we can "see" it. What we cannot do, so far, is CHANGE that spectrum to one in which we can see directly. We cannot alter the rainbow to one of different colors.

Extrapolating from there, if we could do that, then we could theoretically alter the wavelengths of hard radiation to another wavelength which could be useful. The trick obviously would be doing so in a way which doesn't create another/worse hazard than the radiation.

On a fantasy note, wouldn't it be really cool to devise a way to slow down hard radiation in a way that not only lengthened the wavelength to one which is non-harmful to the environment and people, but which also only emitted light as a byproduct?

I have no idea if this could be done, but it was fun thinking it up.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Converting ionizing radiation to visible radiation happens whenever ionizing radiation heats an object, and its thermal profile enters the visible part of the spectrum. (Happens other times, too.)

Sending radioactive waste into the sun would be a fairly permanent way of dealing with the waste. Problem is, you need a lot of delta v to send anything into the sun. Haven't run any numbers to see if it's economically competitive with long term terrestrial storage, given advances in rocketry the last decade. But it would be more efficient to crash it on Mars, or send it into some solar orbit where it won't intercept Earth for 100,000 years.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Converting ionizing radiation to visible radiation happens whenever ionizing radiation heats an object, and its thermal profile enters the visible part of the spectrum. (Happens other times, too.)

Sending radioactive waste into the sun would be a fairly permanent way of dealing with the waste. Problem is, you need a lot of delta v to send anything into the sun. Haven't run any numbers to see if it's economically competitive with long term terrestrial storage, given advances in rocketry the last decade. But it would be more efficient to crash it on Mars, or send it into some solar orbit where it won't intercept Earth for 100,000 years.

It's not even remotely economically competitive, there is a guy on youtube who laid out the math, it's hysterical.

Simply launching it out of the solar system into deep space would be cheaper but still insanely expensive.

Better to find a way to re-use/re-cycle the waste.

 

[Hal9000_]

I actually thought about this in a non-scientific way.

Radiation is the universe. It is the total spectrum. From light to radio to hard radiation, it's all about radiation wavelengths.

Think of it as a rainbow. Our vision in a small "colorband" of the radiation spectrum. We can devise ways to see in other "colors" such as UV by using devices which can pick up radiation wavelengths in that spectrum and then project it in ours so we can "see" it. What we cannot do, so far, is CHANGE that spectrum to one in which we can see directly. We cannot alter the rainbow to one of different colors.

Extrapolating from there, if we could do that, then we could theoretically alter the wavelengths of hard radiation to another wavelength which could be useful. The trick obviously would be doing so in a way which doesn't create another/worse hazard than the radiation.

On a fantasy note, wouldn't it be really cool to devise a way to slow down hard radiation in a way that not only lengthened the wavelength to one which is non-harmful to the environment and people, but which also only emitted light as a byproduct?

I have no idea if this could be done, but it was fun thinking it up.

Why convert? There is plenty of usable energy all around us.

We just can't find a good way to hold on to it.

 

[phrodeau]

I actually thought about this in a non-scientific way.

Radiation is the universe. It is the total spectrum. From light to radio to hard radiation, it's all about radiation wavelengths.

Think of it as a rainbow. Our vision in a small "colorband" of the radiation spectrum. We can devise ways to see in other "colors" such as UV by using devices which can pick up radiation wavelengths in that spectrum and then project it in ours so we can "see" it. What we cannot do, so far, is CHANGE that spectrum to one in which we can see directly. We cannot alter the rainbow to one of different colors.

Extrapolating from there, if we could do that, then we could theoretically alter the wavelengths of hard radiation to another wavelength which could be useful. The trick obviously would be doing so in a way which doesn't create another/worse hazard than the radiation.

On a fantasy note, wouldn't it be really cool to devise a way to slow down hard radiation in a way that not only lengthened the wavelength to one which is non-harmful to the environment and people, but which also only emitted light as a byproduct?

I have no idea if this could be done, but it was fun thinking it up.

There’s a big difference between electromagnetic radiation and particle radiation.

 

[Que]

There’s a big difference between electromagnetic radiation and particle radiation.

lol; wut?

One causes giant ants, three-eyed fish, and turtles with ninja skillz?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Thorium reactors...





Might be able to get China to clean up their act instead of polluting the environment.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Shoot it straight into the sun. Gotta be a way get it off planet safely.

The moon is closer...

 

[von_Bismarck]

lol; wut?

One causes giant ants, three-eyed fish, and turtles with ninja skillz?

Photons behave differently than alpha particles, beta particles, neutron radiation. In fact, all four have different shielding characteristics.

 

[phrodeau]

If a manned rocket explodes, the flags fly half-mast for a week. If a nuclear waste rocket explodes, there’s a medical crisis and unusable crops in a tri-state area.

 

[HisArpy]

Photons behave differently than alpha particles, beta particles, neutron radiation. In fact, all four have different shielding characteristics.

It's just different bands of the rainbow.

 

[von_Bismarck]

It's just different bands of the rainbow.

Not really. Photons are very different from, for example, alpha particles. Photons are single bosons; alpha particles are composite fermions (helium 4 nuclei). As particles, they're excitations of different fields, and in the case of alpha particles, involve excitations of several fields. Alpha particles interact more strongly with matter than photons, which is why one needs only a thin shielding from alpha radiation.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Oy... particles are no where on the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[HisArpy]

Not really. Photons are very different from, for example, alpha particles. Photons are single bosons; alpha particles are composite fermions (helium 4 nuclei). As particles, they're excitations of different fields, and in the case of alpha particles, involve excitations of several fields. Alpha particles interact more strongly with matter than photons, which is why one needs only a thin shielding from alpha radiation.

Ok, not wanting to get scientific here, it was just some middle-of-the-night thoughts on how to deal with the universe around us in a way which could be beneficial. However, I would add that if you quit thinking of the different TYPES of "colors" and instead start thinking that they're "just colors" you might understand what I'm getting at here.

Or perhaps the following would help: WHAT IF we could change photons to alpha particles (or to any of the other "colors" of the rainbow) or vice versa?

We can create devices which emit photons but so far have not created any devices which capture photons.

Perhaps that is where our future energy source lies?

 

[von_Bismarck]

Ok, not wanting to get scientific here, it was just some middle-of-the-night thoughts on how to deal with the universe around us in a way which could be beneficial. However, I would add that if you quit thinking of the different TYPES of "colors" and instead start thinking that they're "just colors" you might understand what I'm getting at here.

Or perhaps the following would help: WHAT IF we could change photons to alpha particles (or to any of the other "colors" of the rainbow) or vice versa?

We can create devices which emit photons but so far have not created any devices which capture photons.

Perhaps that is where our future energy source lies?

Well, we can and do capture photons for energy production and storage. They're photovoltaic solar cells, and gigawatts of additional capacity are being added to the world each year now.

Transmuting particle species is a bit trickier. We can, for instance, transmute high energy photons like gamma particles into electron-antielectron pairs. This happens in particle accelerators. But in general it takes a great deal of energy to convert photons into other particle species. Talking about transmuting particle species is a discussion in quantum field theory, which is not easy. Suffice to say, the heavier and more complex the target species, the less likely and more difficult it is to make happen. Assuming the desired transmutation is even allowed by the conservation laws. (For instance, electric charge conservation. Photon to electron-antielectron conversion is allowed because photons have no electric charge, and while electrons have electric charge, anti-electrons have the opposite charge of electrons, so the net charge is zero.)

 

[HisArpy]

Well, we can and do capture photons for energy production and storage. They're photovoltaic solar cells, and gigawatts of additional capacity are being added to the world each year now.

Transmuting particle species is a bit trickier. We can, for instance, transmute high energy photons like gamma particles into electron-antielectron pairs. This happens in particle accelerators. But in general it takes a great deal of energy to convert photons into other particle species. Talking about transmuting particle species is a discussion in quantum field theory, which is not easy. Suffice to say, the heavier and more complex the target species, the less likely and more difficult it is to make happen. Assuming the desired transmutation is even allowed by the conservation laws. (For instance, electric charge conservation. Photon to electron-antielectron conversion is allowed because photons have no electric charge, and while electrons have electric charge, anti-electrons have the opposite charge of electrons, so the net charge is zero.)

I don't think we "capture" anything in a solar cell. Instead I think that the silicon is excited by photons and that's what produces the energy from the cell.

I could be wrong but if I am, it tends to show that future energy production just might lie in this area. The key will be to find new materials and the associated physics to make it possible.

We just don't know enough right now.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I don't think we "capture" anything in a solar cell. Instead I think that the silicon is excited by photons and that's what produces the energy from the cell.

I could be wrong but if I am, it tends to show that future energy production just might lie in this area. The key will be to find new materials and the associated physics to make it possible.

We just don't know enough right now.

That's exactly what happens in a solar cell. The photon is captured, which excites valence electrons (sends an electron from a lower energy state to a higher energy state) and generates a voltage difference across the band gap.

If you're looking for advances in solar energy, a good one I think to keep an eye on is perovskite. Perovskite solar cells have the potential to be cheaper, printable on many surfaces, less toxic, and are slated to go commercial in a big way later this year.